Talk:Hyrule Historia
Here This. Now, the question is, should this be considered an official product? --Auron'Kaizer ' 14:12, August 19, 2012 (UTC) :I don't know why it wouldn't be. It's licensed by Nintendo and contains insight on the development process as well as clarifies certain story elements (to the chagrin of some, but still). It's certainly not an unofficial product. Maybe what you meant if it should be considered the end-all be-all of Zelda canon? I would say it's the closest we have right now, but the book (or at least, what GlitterBerri translated out of the original) also says that the creators aren't restricted and anything could change in the future. LinkTheLefty (talk) 16:21, August 19, 2012 (UTC) Western Version Announced Announcement Here & Pre-order Bonus Info Here I must say I much prefer the Western cover oh the Hyrule Historia book over the japanese cover. Ixbran (talk) 22:00, August 21, 2012 (UTC) :It is announced on the main page already, and talk pages aren't for opinions.--Kingkillerbee (talk) 22:47, August 21, 2012 (UTC) Hyrule Historia and it's credibility. So I read that this wiki doesn't consider the Hyrule Historia to be 100% canon (especially it's timeline theory), but I think it should technically be used more on this wiki. Since Nintendo did make this to better clear up the plot-holes (but also encouraged others that they can make their own theory) it is quite credible if you ask me.--Zakitaro (talk) 11:43, April 9, 2015 (UTC) :I'm inclined to agree with you. The main series games themselves contradict each other in a number of places, but that doesn't cause people to declare some of the games non-canon. Since Eiji Aonuma is the book's supervising editor, the book carries some degree of authority; the timeline clearly isn't perfect, but neither are the games' plots in relation to each other. There is that statement that encourages players to grapple with the timeline themselves, but as an officially licensed source, the Hyrule Historia timeline, as well as any other information in the book, should at least be acknowledged in relevant articles until a revised version of the timeline comes to light (which, if the timeline truly is subject to change, probably will, in time) -- in which case, the HH timeline will be declared an outdated theory like the Miyamoto Order before it. Jedimasterlink (talk) 23:01, April 9, 2015 (UTC) I think Hyrule Historia should carry some weight but when it comes to the timeline I just don't see it necessary to include the information in a lot of places. These were made as stand alone games with tenuous links, mentioning the fact that the Oracle games take place in the Fallen Timeline isn't really relevant to the information in the Oracle games. Any information pertaining to them is perfectly fine without it. The only place where timeline reference would fit, the way I see it, is in A Link Between Worlds since that is a very definite and intentional sequel (even though it does contradict numerous points from A Link To The Past). The Hyrule Historia timeline also claims to use the same Link for A Link to the Past, the Oracle games and Link's Awakening even though that's an impossibility given the information provided in the games themselves. Oni Link 23:43, April 9, 2015 (UTC) :If you ask me, the games themselves can contradict each other even when it's clearly meant to ether be a sequel or prequel so I'm not sure about the incarnation of Link in A Link to the Past, the Oracle games and Link's awakening. In fact, Link's Awakening clearly showed itself to be a sequel to the Oracle games. I'm aware that at least a few people find the timeline ludicrous, but since Nintendo insisted there was a timeline, we should probably add that to this wiki. In fact, this wiki seems to deny more than just the timeline such as how the Hero of Time eventually lived a regretful life and became the Hero's Shade who helped his descendant who is the incarnation of Link in Twilight Princess.--Zakitaro (talk) 05:06, April 10, 2015 (UTC) I don't think the Oracle games were ever inteded to be a sequel, or a prequel, to Link's Awakening. Sure it has a boat at the end but sometimes a boat is just a boat. The artwork for both Link's depict him differently, artwork that is used in game I might add. More importantly however, Link does not recognize Zelda when he meets her in the Oralce games. It's possible for the Oracle games to be a prequel to Link's Awakening but it is not possible for all four games to have the same Link because of this. Oni Link 09:05, April 10, 2015 (UTC) :I kinda meant the part where Link temporarily mistook Marin for Zelda. As for the artwork, it was probably just because it was created in a different time (notice how Link and Zelda in the newer games look "better" compared to the older game versions?). If they were to redraw the characters in the older games, they would probably look more good looking. And besides, who's to say Link didn't recognize Zelda in the Oracle games? I mean he didn't exactly talk. Anyways, as I've written above, this wiki should really accept more of the content in Hyrule Historia even if some of the fans don't like it. If Nintendo or the creators make another thing, then we should change it but until then, we should write more of it down.--Zakitaro (talk) 10:58, April 10, 2015 (UTC) Maybe it would be more accurate to say doesn't recognize Link. Something that is clearly stated when they first meet in either of the games. And limited technology or style can't really be attributed to the artwork since Link's Awakening DX was released on the same console just three years before the Oracle games yet has a distinct different style for both the Link's, most notably the colour of his hair and sleeves. Though that can be chalked up to different artists having different styles, but not period of creation. Regardless this isn't really the place to argue about it. I just believed there are enough contradictions to place it within reasonable doubt. When it comes to accepting content from Hyrule Historia, there is nothing we expressively forbid. It just referencing child timelines and fallen timelines isn't necessary and doesn't add much outside of a select few articles. We never included anything from the Miyamoto Order in articles but we did give it a page and note it's strengths and weaknesses. Overall the series has been a set of stand alone games, usually even when sequels are involved. Even with an official timeline I just don't see much reason to reference it since for the most part, the order of events are irrelevant. There's plenty of other interesting stuff in Hyrule Historia and we have included some of it, like Ganondorf's planned appearance in the Oracle games. It's just that adding new content isn't something a lot of us have time for anymore as a large portion of the community have left the site since we hit and editing slump. Oni Link 13:16, April 10, 2015 (UTC) :By the art style I was slightly referring to the much older ones such as the Legend of Zelda and the Adventures of Link. I still kinda think most of the newer games have better art designs. Since this is a wiki (which is something to write down information about) I think it is notable to write about the timeline. Besides, pretty sure it can add quite a bit of information as well as expand the wiki pages. Contradictions are thing that have been in Zelda games for some time so you probably shouldn't take it too seriously. Adding new content may actually be the thing to better help this wiki, isn't it? If we don't write more about stuff or better improve the information we already have, then doesn't that mean this wiki is a sitting duck? Even if most of the members don't have enough time to write it all down in a flash, I don't think we need to rush it. This wiki already has a handicap by not allowing trivia so there is that as well.--Zakitaro (talk) 13:29, April 10, 2015 (UTC) Oh I'm not claiming the editors not being around is a reason the information shouldn't be added to the wiki. Of course it should. It just hasn't been because so few of us are here. It just (like trivia) has to fit in naturally and be relevant to the article. And due to reasonable doubt it needs to be mentioned where the information is coming from, the same way we would if we were referring to a manual or player's guide. Oni Link 14:09, April 10, 2015 (UTC) :So then why doesn't this wiki just write the timeline down while at the same time mentioning the Hyrule Historia? I know it might seem a bit tedious, but why not give it a shot?--Zakitaro (talk) 01:49, April 11, 2015 (UTC) It looks to me like we're debating over the minutia of how often the information should be mentioned and used, at this point. As far as I can tell, we actually agree that we shouldn't dismiss the whole book as non-canon as the note at the top of this page suggests. Pages whose subjects are directly involved in the transitions between games should at least briefly mention the timeline, and if contradictions appear to exist -- such as the Oracles Zelda seeming to meet Link for the first time -- then that should be mentioned as well, without telling readers what they're "supposed" to think, just as we would in a (well-written) theory section. Also, the HH timeline is given on the timeline page, albeit in prose form, as well as here. (This bit isn't entirely relevant here, but since trivia was mentioned here, I think I should mention that strictly speaking, it's trivia sections that are disallowed since we've long seen them as a sloppy way of adding content that often appears irrelevant due to its poor integration -- bits of miscellaneous information are fine as long as we can make them fit in the main body, which we could afford to try harder to accomplish when someone tries to add something.) Jedimasterlink (talk) 15:20, April 11, 2015 (UTC) So, is it okay to write about the Timeline in pages such as Link and Zelda's? I say this while knowing that I probably should mention it being from the Hyrule Historia.--Zakitaro (talk) 22:54, April 11, 2015 (UTC) :I believe so. Jedimasterlink (talk) 07:57, April 13, 2015 (UTC) I would like to dispute the statement that the Hero of Time lived a 'regretful life'. No, he didn't, and that isn't stated anywhere. He regretted never passing on his Hidden Skills and sought to pass them on to the next Hero. That doesn't mean he lead a regretful life in general and that information is misleading. -Stars talk http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y27/pyroac/Starssprite.gif 00:03, May 27, 2015 (UTC) ::I suppose that's true, but it is stated that he also regretted not being remembered as a hero which kinda hints something. It is stated in the Hyrule Historia that "Since he returned to his childhood, he’d felt regret that he would leave his name as hero." so there is that as well.--Zakitaro (talk) 06:44, May 27, 2015 (UTC)